Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee could not provide certain documents during the assessment. These documents were furnished as additional evidence before the CIT(A), who admitted them and called for a remand report. However, the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on these additional evidences and sustained the net profit estimated by the AO at 2%. The assessee's counsel requested the matter be restored to the AO for examination of the additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence but failed to adjudicate on it, instead sustaining the AO's estimation. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for examination of the evidence and fresh decision.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the additional evidence furnished by the assessee and sustaining the additions made by the AO without proper consideration.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [herein after referred as “CIT(A)”] dated 03.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2022-23 in sustaining the additions made by the AO.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that this is the first year of the business of the assessee and the assessee since could not provide certain documents before the AO at the time of assessment, those documents were furnished before the Ld.CIT(A) as additional evidences which the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on additional evidences furnished by the assessee but sustained the net profit estimated by the AO @2% without adjudicating on the additional evidences furnished. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO to examine the additional evidences, to which the Ld. DR has no serious objection.
We have heard the rival arguments and perused the orders of the authorities below. Considering the submissions of the Assessee the additional evidences furnished before us and perusing the orders of the authorities below we find that though the assessee has furnished additional evidences in the course of appeal proceedings which the Ld. CIT(A) all though admitted the additional evidences and called for remand report from the AO and rejoinder from the assessee, did not deal with the additional evidences and simply sustained the estimation of net profit computed by the AO @ 2% without giving any findings on the additional evidences furnished by the assessee.
Therefore, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration and the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, we restore the issue in appeal to the file of the AO who shall examine the evidences and decide the issue